Response to interpellations 2024/25:497, 502 and 513 on Swedavia's conditions for managing its operations

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg, Heléne Björklund and Isak From have asked me three almost identical questions. Firstly, they wonder if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of how the government's decisions, based on the wording in the Tidö Agreement, affect Swedavia's ability to fulfill its missions and its financial goal moving forward, and if I can, in that case, account for the result. Secondly, they ask if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of whether the decision to continue operating Bromma Airport affects Swedavia's opportunities to develop operations at Arlanda, Ronneby, Åre Östersund and Umeå airports. Thirdly, they wonder if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of how the state ownership policy affects the company's opportunities to act long-term and commercially, as costs for Bromma are now being shifted onto Swedavia's other airports.

Aviation plays a crucial role for Sweden's accessibility and cohesion. It is important for the business sector's competitiveness, essential societal functions, imports and exports, and not least people's opportunities to travel. For many, especially in northern Sweden, aviation is often the only realistic alternative for fast travel within and outside the country.

The government has taken several measures to strengthen aviation's competitiveness and safeguard accessibility, for example, an additional amount of approximately 1 billion kronor to counteract fee increases for security checks and baggage. The state grant for operating support to non-state airports has been doubled, and the aviation tax is being abolished from July 1, 2025, in order to, among other things, improve accessibility throughout the country.

Swedavia is subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, including the Companies Act (2005:551). It is the board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the ongoing management of the company's operational activities. Issues concerning revenue, costs, and investments are matters for the board and management to handle. It is also the board's responsibility that the companies are managed exemplarily within the framework of legislation and the state's ownership policy.

The government decided in 2009 on a national basic supply of airports that the state should, in the long term, be responsible for providing. In the decision, it was stated that the following airports would be included in the basic supply: Göteborg Landvetter, Kiruna, Luleå, Malmö, Ronneby, Stockholm Arlanda, Stockholm Bromma, Umeå, Visby and Åre Östersund. It is this decision that applies to this day.

It is not feasible to make any decision regarding the closure of Bromma Airport during this parliamentary term. Several issues need to be investigated more deeply before decisions can be made. This concerns, for example, the changed conditions for the defense's needs as a result of the global situation and NATO's accession and what significance Bromma Airport may have in this. It also concerns how the state's basic supply of airports should look, including financing issues. It is also important to emphasize that the Armed Forces have pointed out that the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport need to be mapped out.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!

One of my concerns here today is that Arlanda Airport is not, or will not become, the competitive hub that is needed for Sweden's development. In a small export-dependent country in northern Europe, we Social Democrats want more long-distance direct lines. We do not want to feed feeder traffic to Copenhagen. We want to see more examples of how the headquarters of large companies and financial institutions end up in Sweden, and we want to see more visitors to our country.

My other concern is how the funding for the other state-owned regional airports is affected when Bromma hardly has any traffic anymore.

Mr. Speaker! I live in Jämtlands län. We who commute to or from the county choose the train, but it may very well be the last time. The Finance Minister has prioritized away the Transport Administration's demands for resources for basic accessibility, which means that the night trains from Gothenburg will now disappear in less than a month. The Government has also not wanted to give any clear announcements regarding the future of the night trains from Stockholm to the county beyond 2026.

Instead, perhaps the Minister for Finance thinks that the people of Jämtland can rely on the roads, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Jämtland's roads are the country's worst. A car journey along Jämtland's roads is more of an extreme sport than a safe transport route.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the flights to and from Åre Östersund Airport – an airport in the inland of northern Norrland that has had a tough time since the pandemic. The departures are not many. Competition is non-existent, which makes the tickets expensive. Right now, there are still opportunities for those who need to commute weekly for work or for those who are going to travel further from Arlanda.

But Åre Östersund Airport cannot bear the costs when practically all domestic flights have moved from Bromma Airport to Arlanda. The government continues to allocate resources to a ghost airport that the market has abandoned, which is an extremely inefficient way to use tax money.

Dagens Nyheter writes that nine out of ten passenger aircraft that land at Bromma Airport are now private planes. Some of Sweden's wealthiest people, for example, use the airport for ski trips with private flights to the Swiss Alps. Several fly alone or offer other private flight passengers a chance to come along. Before a trip, a founder of a large private equity firm writes: "I am flying alone with a pug, so there are 3 seats available." It is actually not reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that Åre Östersund Airport, together with Swedavia's other airports, should finance Bromma Airport, where nine out of ten flights are made with private planes, with one or another pug – especially considering that Swedavia is not meeting its financial goals.

The three questions I asked in my interpellation, I have still not received answers to from the Minister for Finance. She naturally gets a new chance to answer them in the next speech. It concerns the analysis of the government's decision based on the wording in the Tidö Agreement. How does this affect Swedavia's ability to meet its financial goals? What is the analysis of how it affects the rest of the airports, which take over the costs for Bromma? And how does it affect the travelers of the other airports?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Finance for the answer!

My colleague has accounted for many of the reasons why we have this debate today. I want to say something about Blekinge. Blekinge is a small and extremely export-dependent county with a strong business sector, university, authorities, and extensive defense establishments. Here, for example, are F 17, one of Sweden's most important air fleets, Boverket, the Coast Guard, the defense industry, and so on. All these actors, together with the tourism industry and private travelers, make our only airport incredibly strategic and important for our county's development.

Ronneby Airport has, just like some others, lost a large part of its market. Approximately 50 percent of the passengers have disappeared since 2019. Swedavia, the state-owned company that owns the airports, reported an operating result of minus 318 million kronor in 2023.

It should be said that the people of Blekinge love Bromma Airport. We would have gladly seen that we could continue to fly to Bromma. But through the cooperation that now exists between the two previously competing companies, all traffic from Ronneby now goes to Arlanda. This has meant a poorer selection of departures for the people of Blekinge, but for Swedish aviation, it is perhaps still good that one concentrates efforts on one airport. We believe that the government should also embrace this.

As long as Swedavia is forced to continue operating Bromma, where 90 percent of the traffic has now disappeared, money is also being pumped in there in a way that is not reasonable. Therefore, I pose my two questions to the Minister for Finance in this first exchange of remarks. It is once again about how the government has analyzed the consequences of not daring to step forward and close Bromma. How will it affect, for example, Ronneby Airport when the money cannot be placed there instead? And have the government and the Minister for Finance had investigated what opportunity costs arise by continuing to operate Bromma instead of investing in strategically important regional airports such as Ronneby?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government itself presents that aviation has decreased sharply after the pandemic. Swedavia, which is a state-owned company, argues that the sharp decline in aviation requires that measures be taken. Just as previous interpellants here have highlighted, air traffic at Bromma has decreased sharply. No commercial flights depart from Bromma at all anymore.

The starting point for this interpellation debate is that Swedavia's CEO and board have informed the government that this will have consequences for other airports and for travelers from the state's other airports. When one hears the Finance Minister's answer, one also finds oneself wondering what effects this will have on the municipal airports, of which there are quite a few.

Mr. Speaker! This is not a new issue. When the previous government became purely Social Democratic and Tomas Eneroth was appointed Minister for Infrastructure, the investigation was commissioned under the leadership of the investigator Peter Norman. The investigator submitted his report, Ds 2022:11, in June 2022. There it was stated that in order to improve the conditions for the state-owned airports, it would be reasonable for a few more airports to become state-owned. The airports in, among others, Skellefteå, Kalmar, and Ängelholm were proposed. It has also been put forward in the discussion that the airport in Sundsvall Timrå, with the conditions those locations have, should also become state-owned.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is happening now is that Swedavia's board is not allowed to act because of the Tidö Agreement's locks. They want to make changes, but they are not allowed to. The Government says no, and the Finance Minister also says that these issues must continue to be investigated.

The government, the Minister for Finance, and the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure have appointed Peter Norman, who has been given a follow-up assignment. Among other things, the importance of Bromma for civil defense and ambulance flights shall be included. In that context – if it is investigated that the state should take responsibility for Stockholm's ambulance flights – one can ask what will happen with the responsibility for ambulance flights at the airports in Skellefteå, Lycksele, Vilhelmina, and Ängelholm or at any of the other municipal airports. Is it municipalities or regions that are to provide it while the state's responsibility is to be specifically investigated when it concerns Bromma?

There is a great state responsibility when it comes to the cohesion, and it concerns Arlanda. In this region, here in the region, Arlanda is central from many perspectives. Just as Region Stockholm and the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce say, it must be prioritized, and the efforts at Arlanda must be improved, whether it concerns the accessibility to the airport by road or rail or the localization of other parts, for example a new runway.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually intended to start this debate by trying to interpret the Social Democrats here in the chamber benevolently. I thought that a new interest in aviation and aviation commitment has now emerged from the Social Democrats.

But then I have listened to the contributions that have been made and become a bit confounded. I believe that one needs to put things into context. It was, therefore, the Social Democratic government that introduced the aviation tax. It was the Social Democratic government that time and again tried to shut down Bromma. I myself was involved in stopping those attempts with initiatives in the Finance Committee during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, when we were not allowed to travel, air travel declined. Then the Social Democrats in government tried to take advantage of that to shut down airports and further complicate air travel. During this mandate period, they have voted against the aviation billion that this government and our coalition parties introduced to save airports across the country.

I thought that the debate we are now having would have to do with a newly awakened interest in ensuring aviation throughout the country, but that is not how I have actually been able to interpret it.

I think it is unfortunate that the Social Democrats time and again try to shut down Bromma Airport. I think the question should be asked the other way around: Have the Social Democrats analyzed what happens if one shuts down Bromma Airport? I know that a number of things were done during the previous government, but you are welcome to tell us about the consequences. Things and circumstances have changed, for example, the security situation. We will need Bromma Airport for pure defense interests. We will need it for redundancy when it comes to commercial aviation. We will need it for utility flights such as ambulance transports. Even ambulance transports from the north of Sweden, where I come from, need Bromma Airport and the accessibility there.

I think it is good that this government is not rushing and, at the first opportunity, dismantling airport infrastructure that then cannot be rebuilt. I think it is good that this is being reviewed in a serious way between our four parties.

Mr. Speaker! I have worked in this chamber for nearly 15 years fighting for the interests concerning Norrland, the countryside and, as I usually say, everyone who every day is dependent on the car. In this country, we are dependent on transport to and from work. We are dependent on transport to manage everyday life and make it work. Aviation is a central part, not least for those parts of the country where one has a long way to Stockholm and a long way to markets out in Europe. It is good for individual people, for us as private individuals, and it is also important so that we can maintain ownership locally here in Västerbotten, where I come from. If the headquarters for successful international, global companies are to be able to stay, aviation must function.

Therefore, I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to belong to a party that is now part of a government that fights for aviation and for good transport throughout the country. But the Social Democrats do not protect aviation, Mr. Speaker. What the Social Democrats actually want to use this debate for is to shut down an airport. It is not any concern for functioning transport. What one has constantly done is to have switched off people's opportunities for travel.

I am glad that we have a government that looks out for all of Sweden and for all people's opportunities and rights to transport themselves in the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Mr. Speaker! Edward Riedl says that the Social Democrats are trying to shut down Bromma. It actually looks as if the market is handling it itself.

According to the new ownership policy for state-owned companies, which will take effect from the 2025 annual general meeting, the company's board will receive an even clearer responsibility to develop and manage the company in a professional manner. The company shall generate market-competitive returns and actively manage the company so that the long-term economic development becomes the best possible and so that the social missions decided by the Riksdag are well executed.

Companies with state ownership shall act in a business-oriented, sustainable, and exemplary manner in a way that maintains public trust. The purpose of the company's activities is, as with private companies, to generate profit. The Act on Limited Liability Companies' distribution of responsibility states that the company's board and management are responsible for the company's organization, the management of the company's affairs, and the ongoing operational activities.

One of our state-owned companies is Swedavia, which operates ten airports, including Bromma. When Bra stopped flying at Bromma, 90 percent of the traffic disappeared.

In the Tidö Agreement, it states that no decisions regarding the closure of Bromma Airport shall be made during the mandate period. According to what I have been able to read, it implies an annual loss of 1 billion – perhaps that is what is the aviation billion. Is this correct? The Finance Minister may have the correct figures. How is this to be financed? Does the Finance Minister consider this to be compatible with the requirements of the Companies Act and the ownership policy?

The business community claims that Sweden is losing competitiveness and that investments should be made in Arlanda to save Swedish domestic flights. Arlanda's weak development is a brake on the entire economy, says Marcus Dahlsten, CEO of Transportföretagen. He further argues that Arlanda's crisis should be a wake-up call. WSP has produced a report on behalf of Transportföretagen which shows that the airport's weak development has already cost 192 billion.

Does the Minister for Finance and the government still think it is a good idea to continue operating Bromma instead of investing in Arlanda and the other airports to support the business community in the whole country?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the interpellants for the questions and the great concern they have for Swedavia as a company. I have been asked to answer these interpellations because I am responsible for the state-owned companies.

When I listen to the interpellants, it almost sounds as if it would have been best if Bromma had been shut down yesterday – then Swedavia would have had a much easier task.

I think we have to go back a bit.

Swedavia is a company that has an important task. We have close contact with them in ownership dialogues and other matters. Then, of course, they handle much of the operational side entirely on their own. That is the whole point of the company. But it is also about long-term perspective.

Do the board members seriously mean that the airport should have been closed yesterday – then the world would look a bit better, and Swedavia would have a bit calmer work? No, I don't think it's that well-thought-out.

Let me just say a few short things. Just like the interpellants, I am very concerned that it works with transport throughout Sweden. We live all around the country – from north to south. One must be able to transport oneself.

After the pandemic, flying has absolutely decreased. We have changed our travel habits. Sometimes we have replaced trips with Zoom or Skype meetings. It is significantly more environmentally friendly, so to speak. There are fewer emissions from it. But it is quite obvious like this. It also places demands on airports all over Sweden. Regardless of whether they are state-owned or regional, this poses new requirements.

A transformation is also taking place now. In that transformation, development occurs. We are, for example, members of Nato. We are expanding the total defense. It is also about electric aviation. There are many parameters that must be weighed in a decision regarding Bromma.

For me, it is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. We have commissioned an investigation that covers this entire perspective. Before decisions are made regarding a large, central and important airport – which is important for many – we must, of course, have a very good basis. I do not share the view that that basis exists, because if it did, we could have acted on it.

Mr. Speaker! Since we are talking about infrastructure, I thought I would take the opportunity to say something, as we have placed an infrastructure bill before the Riksdag. For the first time in a very, very long time, we have submitted a bill that allows for the full payment of road maintenance. These could be roads in Krokom, in Bjuv, in Haparanda, in Hallsberg, or in Kumla. Maintenance has long been neglected, under many different governments. This will now be rectified. I am glad about that.

Furthermore, we have made decisions on the start of construction for a total of 18 infrastructure projects around Sweden. It concerns the capacity on the Malmbanan. It concerns the start of construction of the second stage of the Norrbotniabanan. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how many Social Democrats have cut ribbons up at the Norrbotniabanan even though almost not a single meter of rail has been built. We can have another debate about that.

But when it comes to the aviation market, the members of the chamber are absolutely right. Patterns are changing. We must have a good and stable aviation operation in Sweden – no matter where one lives. We will ensure that we have that. I can guarantee the members of the chamber that this government and I, as responsible for the companies, take responsibility for both the infrastructure bill and for the company Swedavia.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!

I just want to remind of something regarding the Norrbotniabanan. It was the Finance Minister's previous government – Fredrik Reinfeldt's government – that stopped the construction of Norrbotniabanan. Then the entire planning was resumed during Stefan Löfven's government.

Mr. Speaker! In the answer to the interpellations, the Minister for Finance said: Swedavia is subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, including the Companies Act. It is the board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the ongoing management of the company's operational activities. Questions concerning revenue, costs, and investments are matters for the board and management to handle. It is also the board's responsibility that the companies are managed in an exemplary manner within the framework of legislation and the state's ownership policy.

Of course that is true, and the state's ownership policy is about the company's return. The company is not reaching its financial goals. Therefore, the state-owned airport company Swedavia wants to close Bromma airport because it has no profitability. But it is the government that says no.

Sweden is an elongated country. It is a little more than 160 mil as the crow flies from Smygehuk to Treriksröset. It is approximately the same distance as between Stockholm and Milan. In a country with our geographical conditions, aviation is not just a means of transport for leisure trips. It is completely central when it comes to holding our country together – that is what we Social Democrats believe. It binds people together and enables work, education, and business development from north to south.

We all know here that none of the ministers in Kristersson's government live north of Borlänge. They therefore do not need to commute from northern Sweden, as many of the rest of us do. For those of us who live in Jämtland County, it is of the utmost importance that Åre Östersund Airport has sufficient resources and communications, which enable us to live and work there.

For Sweden's competitiveness, it is of the utmost importance that Arlanda is developed, so that Sweden does not merely feed Denmark with traffic. Bromma Airport has become a symbol of political waste, where taxpayers' money is spent on keeping an airport alive for political reasons rather than because there are actual needs.

The government is not transparent. They do not report the real costs for Bromma or ensure that investments are made where they actually strengthen the whole of Sweden. To lock the country's aviation strategy in a political agreement where Bromma airport serves private aviation travelers instead of adapting it to reality risks, Mr. Speaker, becoming a costly mistake with consequences for the entire country's development.

A member spoke about a billion-kronor investment. I remember that billion very well, the one that the previous government gave to Flygsverige during the pandemic. I do not think that is what we should be discussing, nor do I think that all modes of transport in this elongated country are enormously important for a social democrat. Had I lived anywhere near shipping, Mr. Speaker – which I do not, as I live in the inland of Norrland – I would also have pleaded for that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answers, even though it sounded a bit as if we who are asking the questions would be asking them for rhetorical or strategic reasons rather than for the reason that we actually care about developing the communications between our home towns and Stockholm and work for the transports to function in the whole country. I take that as a personal insult.

Both the Minister and the Moderate member also say that it sounds like the Social Democrats wanted to shut down Bromma Airport yesterday. I have not heard anyone here either state this or ask questions about it. The questions have concerned what consequence analysis lies behind the fact that one is not working on that track. The Minister says that an investigation has been appointed to shed light on those consequences, and my question then becomes when it is to be completed. How long should it be allowed to take?

We have a state-owned airport company that is bleeding financially and which at the same time is forced to operate an airport that, apart from the private travelers, is practically empty. Is this compatible with the government's ambitions to develop transport that works in the whole country? Is it compatible with developing the regional airports operated by the same company, which are struggling financially to survive when 90 percent of the traffic from Bromma has now left the airport?

It is a reformulation of my previous questions, but the questions remain.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance says that this should be investigated in depth, and that is, of course, welcome. But it has apparently been ongoing for a while, and over the last few months, it has been shown with all desirable clarity that the traffic that has been moved from Bromma to Arlanda has moved. If one is to be honest, it has also made it possible to fly from Umeå via Arlanda directly, for example, to Kalmar, Halmstad or Växjö without having to take a taxi to Bromma.

But that is not the basis for the interpellation. The basis is that Bromma is an economic catastrophe that must be paid for by the other state airports. The basis is also, just as Marianne Fundahn points out, that the state has signaled a new ownership policy where it is proposed that the boards should be given greater responsibility and a greater mandate. But where is that in this question? Swedavia's board and management say that this is not feasible and that one cannot continue in this way.

The government does not want to close Bromma despite that Bra has left the airport and despite that the board says that this is not possible. The government also says that the return requirements remain. No new money is added, but instead, the costs are shifted. Indirectly, it is therefore the passengers from Umeå, Östersund, Kiruna and Landvetter who will have to bear the costs of maintaining Bromma. If one now considers that Bromma airport is so important from other aspects, it is actually the government's responsibility to provide a special fund, take Bromma out of Swedavia and ensure that Bromma can remain for electric aviation, a defense facility or something else.

From the business community, regardless of whether one is in Umeå or in Stockholm, they are not particularly impressed. The tourism industry is not particularly impressed, because Sweden and Arlanda have lost competitiveness compared to Copenhagen, Oslo, and Helsinki. Arlanda has become a transfer airport compared to Kastrup. If we are to increase air traffic, we also need international travelers who can fly to Arlanda and travel further into the country. It is a very important tourism policy issue that the business community is raising, and the government is fully aware of that.

Is the government really so locked by the Tidö Agreement that we cannot do anything during the current year? A lot happens during a mandate period, but in this case, one binds oneself and says that it is not possible to make any change during the current mandate period, even though both the board, the CEO and the business community say so. It is strange.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us state that the Social Democrats in this debate will use all the arguments that exist to shut down Bromma, just as was done during the previous parliamentary term. It was stopped then by an initiative here in the chamber that I was involved in.

It is a bit cheeky of one of the Social Democrats' members to say that the Social Democratic government added money to aviation during the pandemic. That was done because there was a majority gathered by none other than Elisabeth Svantesson in opposition. She gathered a majority in the Riksdag and forced through these supports. This is what they are now trying to rewrite the history around. It is actually a bit provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Let us state that this government has provided funds to ensure that there are airports throughout the country. It is about maintaining competition and accessibility. If Bromma is closed, as the Social Democrats want, it will not be possible to reopen the airport, and everyone who uses aviation knows what has happened now that Bromma has closed: accessibility has worsened, and flight departures have disappeared because competition has become worse.

Those who truly care about transport can work in different ways. Either one shuts down Bromma and ensures that it never gets better, or one analyzes, has a bit of patience, and hopes that more actors will come and contribute to us getting a better functioning aviation.

The Social Democrats were for a flight tax and introduced one. We backed down from that. One also saw to it that we practically had the world's highest petrol and diesel prices. We have now backed down so that we have Western Europe's lowest prices. Whoever is listening to this debate knows that if one cares about transport, the Moderaterna are at least preferable over the Socialdemokraterna. This applies in area after area.

When it comes to the Norrbotniabanan, one becomes somewhat provoked. For eight years, the ribbon was cut, I don't know how many times. But no railway was laid in the ground. It is embarrassing!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Mr. Speaker! When Bra stopped flying to Bromma, it meant that flights to our other airports also decreased. When I now fly to Stockholm from Malmö, I am met by a rather desolate airport. It also means that the surrounding services disappear and with them, job opportunities.

Instead of flying to and from Malmö, many people from Skåne choose to fly to and from Copenhagen. There are more than twice as many departures to Stockholm there, and from the airport in Copenhagen, it takes twelve minutes by train to Hyllie, where there are good connections to the rest of southern Sweden. That is not the case from Malmö; there is only a flybus to Malmö and Lund. I see a great risk that more people will choose to fly from Kastrup instead of Malmö, and what happens to the airport then? It is difficult to compete with Kastrup.

The Danish government is now strengthening Kastrup's position through further investments. I therefore wonder: Does the government have any plans to strengthen Arlanda's position?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for this discussion. We need a good infrastructure and good transport all around the country in order to be able to work and live here.

I want to say three short things – one about the ownership policy, one about Swedavia and one about Bromma.

When it comes to the ownership policy, it was nevertheless time that we updated and revised it. It is good and clear for all the state-owned companies that exist. It concerns approximately 40 state-owned companies which together have a value of over 800 billion. It is the most balanced portfolio in Sweden, and it is also the largest. Therefore, it is important that the state, regardless of government, is clear with the taxpayers about what expectations it has for all companies. A clarification has thus been made because the policy has not been good enough previously.

When it comes to Swedavia, one must still remember that the company, up until the outbreak of the pandemic, had a positive development in turnover and profitability. After the pandemic, the company has returned to a positive pace, but it still does not look at all like it did before the pandemic, which I also started by saying.

Then we come to the question of Bromma. It concerns an airport in the capital, and one can, of course, have different opinions on whether it should remain or not. But before making that decision, one must keep in mind that the airport today fulfills an important function for socially useful transport such as ambulance and police flights, as well as for business flights. Furthermore, a safe airspace is ensured from Bromma both over and around Stockholm. What I have now mentioned are activities that are judged to be not entirely simple, but instead difficult to move to and manage at Arlanda.

One must go into depth on all these questions. We think it is very important. I received the question here about whether a political decision should prevent, and first and foremost I just want to make the following clear: We deal exclusively with political decisions. All infrastructure policy is precisely politics. Our policy is about making a historical investment – the largest ever – where we ensure that the maintenance debt for roads can now be paid and that there can be new projects for railways and roads. We also review, and ensure, that Swedish aviation shall function in all of Sweden. It is a shaky time now after the pandemic, but I do not intend to be careless. I intend to take responsibility.

This must be done in a responsible manner, and then we will see what everyone in here comes to and what majorities there are. We will return to the matter of if and how Bromma shall be managed further later. We will not make decisions about that now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for this debate!

To the Moderate member, I just want to say: If you care about sustainable transport and do not have a climate policy that is as hard to find as a crossword puzzle in a snowstorm, the Social Democrats are a better alternative than the Moderates.

The questions I had for the Minister for Finance in my interpellation remain. Just as Member of Parliament Isak From said: If one wants to continue investigating an airport and the other airports and their passengers bear the costs, what analysis has been made? Right now, nine out of ten flights landing at Bromma are private planes. It is nothing we need to use taxpayers' money for.

My three questions therefore remain.

Has the Minister taken the initiative for an analysis of how the government's decisions, based on the wording in the Tidö Agreement, affect Swedavia's ability to meet its financial goals going forward, and can the Minister, if so, account for the result?

Has the Minister taken the initiative for an analysis of whether the decision to continue operating Bromma Airport affects Swedavia's opportunities to develop operations at Arlanda, and can the Minister, if so, account for the result?

Has the Minister taken the initiative for an analysis of how the decision to continue operating Bromma Airport affects Swedavia's costs and opportunities to develop Åre Östersund Airport, and how the costs for passengers are affected?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the debate.

In a previous post, the total defense's need for secure airspace and good airports was mentioned. I have read the Armed Forces' referral response to the investigation on Arlanda Airport. I see nowhere that the Armed Forces – or the Headquarters, which wrote the response – is negative; rather, they are even cautiously positive and say that an expansion could create conditions for, for example, a terminal site for the Coast Guard's aircraft, state aviation, and so on. The referral response arrived on October 25, 2022. Some time has passed since then. My question to the minister regarding how long the in-depth investigation will take therefore remains.

In order not to just talk about closing down but perhaps rather talk about developing: This debate could just as well be about developing a good airport in Stockholm. In a previous post, the airport in Copenhagen was discussed. It could actually be that we are to invest in Arlanda. Or does the government and the minister consider it necessary that just Stockholm has two airports?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker and Minister for Finance! I asked a question at the beginning of the interpellation debate about where Peter Norman's proposal to open more state-owned airports has gone. As the economic situation for Swedavia looks now, it is clear that it does not seem to be relevant, because it will naturally cost money. But as things stand now, other state-owned airports, and in the long run the passengers, are paying the price because the government – and the government's agreement with the Sverigedemokraterna on this issue – prevents the Moderaterna from taking responsibility.

Normally, I perceive the Moderaterna as a party that believes that tax money, and money in general, should be used responsibly. We have a regional business sector, and also local businesses out in the country, which say that Arlanda must be prioritized and that a decision must be reached. But that does not seem to be happening, instead, the Tidö Agreement puts a stop to it here.

When it comes to the fact that it is the Sweden Democrats who have put a stop to this, I also cannot help but say that I would have gladly seen Maud Olofsson or Fredrik Reinfeldt cut the ribbon for the Norrbotniabanan. But instead, it was the Botniabanan in Umeå that was cut off. The Moderate-led Alliance government cut off and put a stop to the line in Umeå. We all hope, however, that someone will sooner or later get to cut the ribbon for the entire Norrbotniabanan.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

The Minister has now announced that she waives her right to hold her concluding remarks in this interpellation debate.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)